US and Israel Discuss Intervention as Tehran Vows Retaliation

Tehran / Washington / Jerusalem — January 11, 2026

Iran latest US and Israel discuss intervention as tensions escalate sharply in the Middle East, with Tehran issuing stark warnings of retaliation against American regional military bases and Israeli targets amid ongoing nationwide protests. Senior officials in Washington and Jerusalem are reported to have held high-level discussions as unrest spreads across Iran, raising fears that internal instability could trigger a wider geopolitical confrontation involving the United States, Israel and regional allies.

The developments come as anti-government demonstrations, sparked by deepening economic woes and political grievances, continue to spread across Iranian cities. The unrest, which began in late December, has grown into one of the most significant protest movements the country has seen in years, prompting harsh crackdowns by the Iranian authorities.

Talks of U.S. Involvement with Israel

According to multiple reports, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently held high-level discussions over the potential for U.S. involvement in responding to the crisis in Tehran. Although details of the conversations have not been publicly disclosed, sources familiar with the talks have suggested that the nature of any involvement could range from intensified sanctions and strategic pressure to broader military options — short of a full invasion.

Israeli officials have expressed concern about the situation in Iran, particularly given the ongoing protests and widespread instability. Israel is on high alert for any spillover effects or geopolitical shifts that could arise from U.S. action or further internal conflict inside Iran. Netanyahu’s government has emphasised its interest in coordinating closely with Washington, though it has not signalled any intention to dispatch Israeli forces into Iranian territory.

A U.S. official confirmed that the conversation between Rubio and Netanyahu took place, but did not provide specifics, underscoring the sensitivity of the matter and Washington’s cautious approach.

Tehran’s Stern Warnings

In response to the reports of potential U.S. intervention, Iranian authorities have issued sharp warnings. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf told lawmakers that any American military action against Iran would be met with retaliation, specifically targeting both Israeli and U.S. military installations in the region. He described these sites as “legitimate targets” in the event of an attack.

This language reflects a marked escalation in Iran’s rhetoric. Tehran’s response is rooted not only in opposition to possible external intervention but also in deep suspicion of U.S. involvement in what Iranian leaders characterise as domestic unrest. In parliament, cries of “Death to America!” echoed as Qalibaf issued the warnings, illustrating the fraught domestic context in which these external tensions unfold.

Iran’s leadership has also accused the U.S. and Israel of fomenting the protests, framing the nationwide demonstrations as part of a foreign-backed plot to destabilise the Islamic Republic. This narrative underscores Tehran’s consistent denial of legitimate grievances and willingness to attribute internal unrest to outside interference.

Protests and Violence Inside Iran

The backdrop to these strategic tensions remains the ongoing protests across Iran. Over the past two weeks, demonstrations have spread through major cities like Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan and Shiraz, drawing participation from a diverse cross-section of Iranian society. At least 116 people are reported to have been killed in the protests, with thousands more detained, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency.

The protests began as a response to economic hardship — including soaring inflation and the collapse of the rial — but have broadened into demands for political reform and opposition to the clerical establishment. Iran has responded with a heavy security presence, and the government has shut down communications networks, including internet access, in an apparent attempt to stifle organisation among demonstrators and limit international visibility.

Inside Iran, the government’s stance has hardened in recent days, with senior officials branding protesters as “enemies of God” and signalling a willingness to use extraordinary legal measures against them.

International and Regional Repercussions

The dramatic rise in tensions has reverberated beyond Tehran. Regional allies of Iran, such as Russia and Syria, have criticised any suggestion of Western intervention, warning it could destabilise the entire Middle East. Meanwhile, countries in the Gulf and Europe have expressed both alarm at rising violence and a desire to avoid a broader regional conflagration.

For its part, the United States has reiterated that its interest lies in protecting civilians and preventing further bloodshed, not in waging war. White House officials have said that they are monitoring the situation closely, with some senior policymakers considering options ranging from targeted sanctions to cyber operations designed to counter Iran’s internal repression. No decision has been taken on any form of direct military action.

In Israel, the government’s focus remains sharply on national defence, with officials emphasising the need to remain vigilant without inflaming an already combustible regional situation. Tel Aviv’s high alert status reflects concerns that violence in Iran could spill over into broader conflict, potentially drawing in neighbouring states and non-state actors.

Geopolitical Calculations and Risks

The possibility of U.S. involvement in Iran raises complex geopolitical questions. While some in Washington view intervention as a potential means of supporting popular movements and deterring regime repression, others warn that military action could escalate into a wider conflict involving Iran’s network of regional proxy groups, including in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran’s expansive military reach and its capacity to project power through allied militias complicates any potential direct confrontation. Tehran has repeatedly stated that its strategic interests extend well beyond its borders and that any attack would be met with reciprocal measures — not only against military bases but also in diplomatic and economic arenas.

Analysts also note that a unilateral U.S. intervention would carry significant legal and logistical challenges, risk alienating key allies, and could prompt retaliatory actions by Iran’s partners, potentially drawing the United States deeper into Middle East instability.

Domestic Politics and Global Implications

Meanwhile, U.S. domestic politics play into how Washington calibrates its response. With heightened scrutiny from Congress, a divided electorate and competing priorities across multiple global hotspots, policymakers must weigh the potential benefits of intervention against the substantial risks of regional escalation.

International organisations, including the United Nations, have called for restraint from both Tehran and Washington. Global powers such as China and the European Union have urged diplomatic channels and warned against actions that might trigger wider conflict.

Summary: The situation involving protests in Iran has moved beyond internal unrest into a geopolitical flashpoint. Reports that the US and Israel have discussed possible intervention underscore the high stakes, while Iran’s warnings to target American and Israeli military sites if attacked illustrate how quickly the confrontation could spiral. At the heart of this crisis is a population seeking change and the possibility of international actors influencing outcomes in a way that could reshape regional dynamics.
Read more at

Published: 11 January 2026
The English Chronicle Desk
The English Chronicle Online